The dilemma of free will and necessary evil

[Hitetlen]

A few remarks first.

1. Apologists strongly assert that humans must have free will. God will not interfere with our free will, because it would create robots, and that is not his purpose. This assertion makes good sense.
2. From the existence of free will it follows that sometimes some humans will commit evil acts. God does not like these evil acts, but he tolerates them. He tolerates them, because they are the corollary of free will. This assertion is not too convincing (unlike the first one) but let’s accept it for the purposes of this thread.
3. God does not tolerate “any” evil, only the “necessary evil”. This follows from God’s benevolence (also tentatively accepted for this thread). God uses these “necessary evils” to further good. These supposed positive outcomes outweigh the negative results of the evil acts or events, or these evil events will prevent even greater evils from happening. Furthermore, the good outcomes of these evil events cannot be achieved by other, less evil methods, therefore these evils are “necessary”. This is also a relatively reasonable assumption, though it has some drawbacks.

The drawbacks of this assumption are twofold.

1. One is that it is hard to imagine that God’s omnipotence is insufficient to create the intended good outcomes without resorting to use these evils. One starts to wonder, just how far does God’s omnipotence go?
2. The other one is that it is next to impossible to imagine just what good can come out of mass murders, gang rapes, genocides, tortures and other assorted and sundry atrocities we humans so ingeniously inflict on others. Also it is impossible to imagine just what good comes out of earthquakes, wildfires, floods and tsunamis in which people and animals perish indiscriminately, sometimes in hideous pains.

The answer of the apologists is invariably the same: they assert that due to our lack of omniscince we are not in the position to make a qualified statement, we cannot say that those atrocities and disasters do not have some unknown and positive consequences, which are beyond our comprehension. Therefore we must have faith and accept that God would not allow them to happen otherwise.

Even though this “explanation” sounds like “explaining away” to any atheist, let’s accept it for the purposes of this discussion. So I will muster the necessary “faith” and take the apologist’s word for it.

So the assumption is now:

1. we have free will
2. God tolerates necessary evil, but not gratituous evils.

The necessary evil needs some clarification.

Suppose that the raping, torturing and killing of 100 women brings along some greater good. If the perpertrators would stop at 99, this greater good would not be achieved. If they would go and commit these acts to 101 women, the greater good would still materialize, but the one extra rape would not be necessary.

In a sense we deal with a balance: the rape etc. of 99 women is not enough; the rape etc. of 101 women is too much; however the rape etc. of exactly 100 women is necessary and sufficient to achieve this greater good.

If you don’t like the picture above, just imagine a father discplining his kid: to teach the kid something important, the father must administer exatly 3 moderate smacks. If he gives only 2, the kid will not learn it, if he gives 4 or more, it is not necessary any more. If the father gives too mild a smack, the kid will not be impressed, if the father gives too hard smacks, it is not necessary.

So in order to bring forth the greater good, the exact amount of “evil” must be performed, not more, not less.

So, finally, the question: How does God make sure that the necessary evils are performed, but excessive evil is not, without tinkering with our free will?

It cannot be left to a “random” choice. It is impossible that every time a father smacks his kid, he will do the exact number of smacks with precisely the proper force to inflict the necessary pain to teach the kid something, not more, not less. Does God somehow stop the father’s hand at the precise moment? Cannot happen, that would interfere with the father’s free will.

Observe that application to “faith” does not help here. We cannot say that the must have “faith” that “somehow” God will ensure that the proper amount of evil is performed, but not more. This “somehow” - whatever it may be - is interference with the father’s force or number of the smacks. It cannot happen randomly. (Besides, there is no “randomness” as far as God is concerned.)
(continued)

 

[Hitetlen]

There is one way out of this dilemma, but that is even more unpalatable: namely that God is flexible: if the father administers 3 smacks, one “good” will come out. If the father gives “four” smacks, another, slightly greater “good” will materialize. If the father beats his kid to a bloody pulp, God brings forth an even greater good to compensate for it, etc - ad infinitum.

This “solution” simply says that there is no “unnecessary evil”, no matter how horrible acts we perform, God will interfere and convert our evil acts to something “good”, and that truly negates our free will - and also makes the concept of “necessary evil” a farce. Besides this “reasoning” really endorses any kind of mass murder, Holocaust, genocide, gand rapes, tortures, after all no matter what we do, God will step in and convert our evils to good outcomes.

What is your solution to this dilemma?

 

[rstegeman]

I think the concept of “necessary evil” is created by mankind to compensate for our lack of understanding of God’s power and plans. Any evil done by humans is not necessary is purely done through free will. This free will is a gift to us and part of the nature of that gift is that it allows us to go against His will. If He were to intervene because some evil is being performed by a human, then the concept of free will is negated, not just for the person(s) who were going against his will, but for ALL. It’s negated because with free will we have the freedom to choose our course of actions, if he were ever step in on that, it would become a selective thing and out of our hands, thus no free will.

Without this gift, what would be the point of life here on Earth? No evil would be done by the hands of man and everyone would go to Heaven. If that were the case, why wouldn’t He have just kept us in Heaven to begin with? We were put here to be challenged so that we can fully appreciate God and his Love. Each of us are challenged in throughout our lives, some more than others. God has promised us an enternal life in Heaven for believing in Him and following His will. Life on earth is not Heaven, nor was it intended to be.

When looking at the loss of “life”, whether through evil inflicted by man or natural disaster, just remember our ultimate goal - Heaven. Those people who passed away are now going to their ultimate destination and, provided they lived according to God’s word, will enjoy a life free of all evil and suffering. This is the good that comes out of it, people get to go home to God. True, others will be going to the other destination, hell, but it is a result of our own actions and serves as a reminder to always be prepared for our day of judgement.

It’s all kind of like school. Our ultimate goal is to graduate and to get there, we all have to go to class, study, work, be tested and avoid temptations (skipping school, blowing off our studies, etc.). If we do all of this, we will graduate. If we don’t, we fail. We look forward to graduation with some trepidation. We know we want to go onto the next step in our lives, but it’s a great unknown, so there’s a natural fear.

 

[Thal59]

Greetings, Hitetlen.
Nice to see you have been paroled by the moderator cops.

What is your solution to this dilemma?<<<

There is no solution to the dilemma as you proposed it.

The “poser” you have offered is so full of misconceptions, presuppositions, and false assumptions that, as you have pretty much done yourself, one ends up talking themselves into a corner. The “dilemma” rests in the fact that your attempt to reason out the variables in your post is so archaic that sound answer cannot be arrived at.

If we have “free will” we can do anything no matter how beautiful or ugly, saintly or sinful. There will be times when random chance causes a disaster.

A tornado or earthquake may happen on its own; one cannot presuppose God allowed it, or refused to protect victims of it, for specific reasons that we can agree with or criticize.

There is no way to know if God is involved for some overt or covert reason in any particular event.

What “good” can come out of a terrible event; totally speculative. Three different children are raised under abusive parents. The first child decides to use this as a validation to be cruel to others, including his children. The second child recognizes the injustice of the abuse he endured, and therefore has foresworn he will never treat anyone harshly, raising his children with an abundance of love. The third child grows in a completely disturbed manner to the point he commits suicide at the age of 18.

Did God bless the second child and not the first and third? Is the first child so justified by his upbringing in his behavior that God will understand and not hold his future abuses against others as a sin on his part? Did God fail the third child, refusing to come to his rescue? Did God allow the third child to perish to mercifully spare him a long and bitter life?

How does one solve this dilemma? Without knowing the specifics of the three children’s abuses, or their thoughts and feelings about life, one cannot “logic out” why they became what they became. Without an understanding of God, Satan, eternity, heaven, hell, etc, one cannot logic out why God may do or not do anything regarding a specific event.

A child is spanked by his father because he has done something that, in and of itself, may be relatively harmless, but may lead to worse behavior later in life. The child cries to his mother and complains that daddy doesn’t love me. Mother tries to explain, as best she can to such a young and unformed mind, that daddy does love you. The child replies “I don’t understand.” The mother can only ask the child to trust her and to have faith that daddy knows what he is doing. “The day will come, when you are grown up, that you will understand.”

If we live to be a hundred years old, Hitetlen, our minds will always be young and unformed regarding the higher state of life yet to come. We often “do not understand” why “daddy” does the things he does, especially when it is supposed to be “for our own good.”

But those who love Him and believe in Him have trust and faith to place in Him until that time when all is made clear.

Since you do not have this trust or faith in Him, you have nothing left but logic.

What is your solution to this dilemma?<<<

My solution is Faith and Trust.

What is yours?

Thal59

 

[martino]

I like the post because it was so well written and thought out. I have had these same thoughts many times myself. I did see one problem with your reasoning.

Your dilemma seems to be in your idea of “gratuitous evil”. I’m not sure that the Church teaches that God has predetermined the exact number of rapes or deaths (using your example) that will be required for any good to come from them.

I may be wrong but you seemed to have inserted your own idea of God’s omnipotence instead of the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately, I dont even know if the Church acknowledges any distinction between supposed “necessary evil” and “gratuituous evil”. So to me, if there is any holes in your argument it is this.

Maybe someone else will be better equipped to answer for this.

 

[Mike_O]

martino:

I may be wrong but you seemed to have inserted your own idea of God’s omnipotence instead of the Catholic Church.

Oh no, you are quite right. You will see that Hitetlen often spouts his own misinformed opinion, constructs fantastically stupid arguments from it, then assumes that this is what all believers consider about the matter.

The examples given about the rape of 99 vs. 100 vs. 101 women and the other about the beating of a child are so patently absurd and so irrelevant to the discussion that Hitetlen has made it all the easier to see with what illogical foundations the atheist props up his misshapen “intellectual” dogma.

 

[Rob_in_Oregon]

I don’t see how sound theology dictates that genocide or group rape can be, “necessary.” I don’t think God intends that these acts occur, even as a way of testing us, in order to bring about a supposed greater good. I agree that the premises of the original post in this thread are flawed. Glory to God in the highest, and peace to His people on earth! - Rob

 

[VociMike]

I see the situation a little differently. We cannot choose between Good (God) and evil unless we experience both. Evil serves the necessary purpose of allowing us to taste what existence without God is like, so that each of us can make an informed choice. It would seem that evil is its own self-corrective, in that the more evil people experience, directly or indirectly, the more that some of them at least will choose God.

 

[Hitetlen]

rstegeman:

I think the concept of “necessary evil” is created by mankind to compensate for our lack of understanding of God’s power and plans.

I did not create this concept, it was created by Christian apologists, who came up with this idea to “explain” why God tolerates the existing evil. Obviously an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being should never tolerate anything even remotely “evil”. However, evil exists. Instead of admitting that this evil contradicts their concept of God, they came up with such theodicies, trying to explain away the existing evil.

rstegeman:

Without this gift, what would be the point of life here on Earth? No evil would be done by the hands of man and everyone would go to Heaven. If that were the case, why wouldn’t He have just kept us in Heaven to begin with?

Yes, indeed, a truly benevolent being would have done precisely that.

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

The “poser” you have offered is so full of misconceptions, presuppositions, and false assumptions that, as you have pretty much done yourself, one ends up talking themselves into a corner. The “dilemma” rests in the fact that your attempt to reason out the variables in your post is so archaic that sound answer cannot be arrived at.

Instead of such general put-downs you should have pointed out the “errors” I have allegedly made. I can handle criticism just fine, but such generic outburst cannot be taken seriously.

Thal59:

Since you do not have this trust or faith in Him, you have nothing left but logic.

Logic is not really a four-letter word, you know.

Thal59:

My solution is Faith and Trust.

What is yours?

Mine? I don’t believe in God, therefore there is no dilemma for me.

 

[Hitetlen]

martino:

I like the post because it was so well written and thought out. I have had these same thoughts many times myself. I did see one problem with your reasoning.

Thank you. Is it not ironic that you found it well thought out, while others have nothing but generic derogatory remarks?

martino:

Your dilemma seems to be in your idea of “gratuitous evil”. I’m not sure that the Church teaches that God has predetermined the exact number of rapes or deaths (using your example) that will be required for any good to come from them.

Actually, no precise number is necessary. If there are evils which bring forth greater good, then it does not mean that twice the evil would bring along twice the good. If that would be held as a belief, we all should be urged to go out and pile up evil as fast as we can, after all God will change the results of our evil intentions to something beneficial.

martino:

I may be wrong but you seemed to have inserted your own idea of God’s omnipotence instead of the Catholic Church.

Omnipotence is being able to do anything except a logical contradiction.

martino:

Unfortunately, I dont even know if the Church acknowledges any distinction between supposed “necessary evil” and “gratuituous evil”. So to me, if there is any holes in your argument it is this.

I don’t know that either, but Christian apologists use the term “necessary evil” all the time.

Anyhow, thank you for your nice and civilized reply. Best wishes to you.

 

[Rob_in_Oregon]

Hey, VociMike:

I think we have different definitions of the term, “necessary evil.”

My point was that it is never necessary for a particular individual to commit a grave moral evil as part of God’s plan for human salvation. Your point was (I think) that evil must exist, in a general way, for individuals to be able to choose between God and His opposite.

We’re both right?

Glory to God in the highest, and peace to His people on earth!

• Rob

 

[Hitetlen]

VociMike:

I see the situation a little differently. We cannot choose between Good (God) and evil unless we experience both.

Let’s not try to put this idea into practice, and go out and kill and rape. One can make rational decisions without actually experiencing the results of irrational decisions. Leastways, some people can.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

Logic is not really a four-letter word, you know.

nor hell…

 

[havemercy]

Sometimes life seems unfair - and it should. Life is unfair. The world does not operate based on the rule of God, and therefore good happens to bad people and bad happens to good people. We are created totally free so that we may freely choose to do good, loving God and our neighbor, but therein lies the almost immediate possiblity of evil, which is born also of the will. But we’re told that evil will not go unchecked, and the poor in spirit will not be ignored.

What does the Gospel of John say? It says that the world hates the Annointed One and all who serve Him, and that they must suffer therefore as He suffered. The whole prospect of the pending kingdom, that God will come to restore peace and justice, punish and banish evil, and reward good and glorify the righteous, is founded upon the assumption that He is not currently in control (though He has authority), that the world is unjust, that evil succeeds while the good suffer.

We should live as though the kingdom of God is here now, live as though goodness is rewarded and evil is punished, even though it often is not, and may never be. When you are slapped in the face and turn the other cheek, is the other person always immediately shamed into apology? It is not unlikely for them to just slap the second cheek. How often is the truth and gentleness rewarded and the liar and rapist punished? What business should I seek where they look down upon ambition and value balance and personal relationship? The world is not functioning according to fairness (I’d say that it isn’t functioning at all) however, justice is pending, and we ought to live as though this is true. This is hope, and our assurance of hope is what gives us strength.

Under His mercy,
tony

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

Mine? I don’t believe in God, therefore there is no dilemma for me.

so, why do you care?
sooner or later, one way or the other, “right” or “wrong” (there are no absolutes for atheists, so your whole argument is baseless)
the electro chemical funtion ceases. That’s all.
You are right: atheists do not have this kind of “dilemma”,
why do you care?

 

[Hitetlen]

havemercy:

Sometimes life seems unfair - and it should. Life is unfair. The world does not operate based on the rule of God, and therefore good happens to bad people and bad happens to good people. We are created totally free so that we may freely choose to do good, loving God and our neighbor, but then therein lies the possiblity of evil, which is born also of the will. Evil will not go unchecked, and the poor in spirit will not be ignored.

I agree with this, but many Christian apologists do not. Interestingly, Rabbi Kuschner has written an excellent book about the subject: “When bad things happen to good people”.

havemercy:

What does the Gospel of John say? It says that the world hates the Annointed One and all who serve Him, and that they must suffer therefore as He suffered. The whole prospect of the pending kingdom, that God will come to restore peace and justice, punish and banish evil, and reward good and glorify the righteous, is founded upon the assumption that He is not currently in control (though He has authority), that the world is unjust, that evil succeeds while the good suffer.

Unfortunately that does not help anyone who suffers here and now. Most of them are not satisfied that sometime God will restore peace and justice. Since even God cannot “undo” the injusticies of the past, the future “good” may not be a consolation for the present pain and suffering.

havemercy:

We should live as though the kingdom of God is here now, live as though goodness is rewarded and evil is punished, even though it often is not, and may never be. How often, if you are slapped and turn the other cheek, is the other person shamed into apology and reparation? Often times they’ll just slap the second cheek. How often is the truth rewarded and liar punished? What business should I seek where they look down upon ambition and value balance and personal relationship? The world is not built to be fair and just. However, we ought to live as though it is. It is this sort of hope in another reality that gives us strength.

That is a good advice.

 

[havemercy]

Hitetlen:

I agree with this, but many Christian apologists do not. Interestingly, Rabbi Kuschner has written an excellent book about the subject: “When bad things happen to good people”.

More Christians should dig into Judaism, and in this case the contrast of 1st and 2nd Temple Judaism. Thank you for mentioning Rabbi Kuschner’s book. I’ll be sure to give it a read in the near future.

Unfortunately that does not help anyone who suffers here and now. Most of them are not satisfied that sometime God will restore peace and justice. Since even God cannot “undo” the injusticies of the past, the future “good” may not be a consolation for the present pain and suffering.

While it is true that God cannot undo the past, He has made great things availble to every single one of His children. One of these things is the hope in final restitution, but I do concede to the point that this hope isn’t complete in itself (it is, after all, one of the three great virtues). The homeless man needs food and shelter…Do what you can do help him! Victims of murder and rape need aid, consolation! We are the hands of God, and it is our duty (especially us Christians as the Body of Christ) to reach out with charity to those who have been deprived of the love we are commisioned to rub into their hearts and lives.

That is a good advice.

Unfortunately, this advice is not my own.

Peace be with you.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

it is impossible to imagine just what good comes out of earthquakes, wildfires, floods and tsunamis in which people and animals perish indiscriminately, sometimes in hideous pains.

worst than a tsunami is a soul of an atheist lost forever in hell.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being

Curious, you always forget ”incomprehensible”…
for your complete information:
“there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.”